Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Chemists with the US military have developed a set of ultra-strength cleaners to be used in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. The formulas are reportedly tough enough to get rid of nerve gas, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and anthrax. But they are also non-toxic, based on ingredients found in foods, cosmetics, and other consumer products."

It wouldn't even need to be that much. You know what's really good at cleaning up toxic chemicals? Lungs. I bet you could use cow lungs from abattoirs. Mmmm, lung juice cocktail, even increases stamina!

Dammit, I'm torn between taking the comment as a joke and taking it seriously. Do slaughterhouses even use the spare lungs, and why wouldn't that be the perfect filtering method for things that go through lungs? Damn your humorous yet plausible post!

Purified Lung Extract (PLE) is an ingredient in Prothrombin (http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/pdf_extract/179/1/149) which assists haemostasis (clotting). Whether it, itself is a purifying agent, I cannot say. But bovine lungs do have their uses outside the feeding of cats and dogs:)

...as opposed to the price of just letting those toxic substances drift through a community, causing untold amount of additional disease and misery... its refreshing to read of military technology that cleans up destruction, rather than just causing it. I hope that someday a perfect defense isn't just a really good offense, but an ingenious defense.

North Korea has massive chem warfare capability, so the "community" the chemical agents could be drifting through is South Korea. Chems aren't great in small doses, but slather a few urban targets and widespread panic would ensure (even more than from the accompanying artillery bombardment). Since the POTUS has committed to No First Use of nukes, the NKs could use chems in the safe knowledge that we banned chems and won't use any other WMD to stop them.

The Air Force does an excellent job with planning runway denial with minimal damage to the actual runway. A few tactical drops on key locations and you cut an enemies ability to utilize the airfield. The Air Force had to roll in and fix numerous runways in Iraq which had airfield denial operations performed on them once the US moved into Iraq.

"We have enough conventional weaponry to send anyone back to the stone age if we no longer care about the international repercussions."That isn't strictly true either. We have lots of weaponry that, given ample time to employ it, could make Nork life difficult, but there are still plenty of targets it can't reach. The Taliban caves in Afghanistan didn't have AAA and SAMs protecting them, and we still didn't blow them all from the air. Tech is seductive. (Don't feel bad, it seduced Rumsfeld into going into I

Let this be an example to all those anti-military types: don't let it be said that the US military (and by proxy, US gov't) never does anything good. It's arguable whether actual 'military' actions help anyone to some, but this is pretty indisputable. (Arguing "but they cause so much harm and this doesn't make full amends is a disingenious, intellectually dishonest argument.)

(It's OK; you're free to ignore all the medical and material advances which have helped not only save civilian lives, but have been us

The US military/gov't also spends a great deal of effort and money in trying to minimize destruction. As trendy as it is to hate the military and gov't, this is true. We are working very hard to make warfare less destructive.

You seriously trust a website run by a guy who looks like this? [rense.com] He looks like he'd be more at home peddling CD's of his pan flute music at the local farmers market than spouting new age mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theories on the interwebs.

You seriously trust a website run by a guy who looks like this? [rense.com] He looks like he'd be more at home peddling CD's of his pan flute music at the local farmers market than spouting new age mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theories on the interwebs.

Considering most radioactive isotopes are heavy metals with a relatively "fuzzy" chemistry, which can easily become soft acids [wikipedia.org], yes, it's tougher than chocolate, as any student who attended an inorganic-chemistry course could confirm you. Ever tried removing stains of Mercurochrome?

If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

If the fastest decontamination agent creates dangerous byproducts to neutralize NBC agents, is it the best? I think it's hardly worth decontaminating a site if you contaminate the site with your cleaners. "Green" in this article means the site is actually clean when you're done.

If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

If the fastest decontamination agent creates dangerous byproducts to neutralize NBC agents, is it the best? I think it's hardly worth decontaminating a site if you contaminate the site with your cleaners. "Green" in this article means the site is actually clean when you're done.

I don't know if I'd consider STB (Super Tropical Bleach) as a product to create "dangerous byproducts". Especially when you consider that the agents it cleans will have you doing the kickin' chicken within minutes of exposure. I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

STB is basically chlorine bleach and lime. Yes, it's not the kind of thing I would want on my skin or l

I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book [tpub.com].

I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book [tpub.com].

It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.

So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the certain death of large group of human soldiers and a victory to the types of assholes that would use chem/bio weapons?

Of course, if this "green" product works as well or better than the products we are using today, like STB, the great! I'm all for it. However, when it's my ass on the line, don't ask me to be the one to test it. When I've been "contaminated", I don't even want the NBC Decom specialist even taking the time to tell me how green the product is. Just get this human pesticide off of me!

It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.

So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the cer

If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works.

You're missing the point. This is not a treatment for exposure, it's a cleaner for contaminated sites. The question is whether you want to use a cleaner that has known negative effects on the environment (especially when used in large quantities) or one that is less destructive. It doesn't make sense to use super bleach when the military has come up with an effective "green" cleaning agent.

If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works.

You're missing the point. This is not a treatment for exposure, it's a cleaner for contaminated sites. The question is whether you want to use a cleaner that has known negative effects on the environment (especially when used in large quantities) or one that is less destructive. It doesn't make sense to use super bleach when the military has come up with an effective "green" cleaning agent.

If it works better than what we use today, then I'm OK with it. But until I know that for absolutely sure, I would feel better taking my family into a previously contaminated area if all the walls were bleached white than one where some EPA tree-hugger is on TV saying, "It's OK, we chose it because it's GREEN!"

Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".

That's because you're either stupid or a troll. This is not a false dichotomy: there's no third way. For example, orange oil kills ants faster than poison, while mint oil kills yellowjackets faster than poison. Both smell nice and have zero nasty side effects even if you get them on your skin (they can cause irritation if not washed away, but that's about it.)

Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.

No it doesn't. I've used it straight and as I've used products based on orange oil. The ants flounder around for hours before they die. Spray Raid on them and they are dead within minutes.

Given your record with orange oil and ants, I'm sure as hell not going to test mint oil on yellow jackets.

Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.

If that small caliber weapon will save my life, I'm all for it. Consider using lasers to stop bleeding.

Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

Well who knows, but the less toxic they can make it, the better, so they can slather it on like crazy without having to worry about anything except the immediate threat... if it's somewhat less effective but can be used much more freely and quickly, in greater quantity, "green" may be a huge advantage.

> Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".> Any product that is designed to be "green" rather than the best is probably GOING to be inferior because there was some compromise made in order to make it "green".

Quite often, that compromise is "higher price, better raw materials, new processes". Not always, mind. And there seems to be some inflation in the word "green". Still, the point remains.

Well basically, because nerve agents are reactive (reactive enough to react with your nerves) they're also reasonably chemically unstable. If you left some mustard gas out for a few weeks it would all break down, but we don't usually have that long. Harsh chemicals like mineral acids or strong alkali (lye) are the gold standard for decontamination. The radioactive materials reference is likely things like dirty bomb fallout on walls, roofs. If the radioactive isotopes can be dissolved in water and washed aw

NBC decontamination training is standard in the military, and nearly everyone gets to play. Alternate decon solutions that aren't themselves composed of nasty chemicals would be quite useful considering tens of thousands of gallons would be needed for even a small site. The product would need to kill germs and remove chemical agents while helping break them down (they degrade anyway). Other than washing off radioactive contamination there isn't much to be done, but that still would require effective detergent to break loose ground-in crud.

One of the things I hated about working the flight-line was getting tagged to go wash an aircraft. We used some sort of orange-oil based solvent / soap that was friendly to the environment but decidedly unfriendly to bare skin. So we'd get suited up in rain gear, boots, rubber gloves... duct tape to seal intersections between gear.... and a face shield. You did not want that stuff on you. With a high pressure hot water hose and a foam cannon operating in a closed hanger, you got a nice mixture of heat,

I am always reminded of that fine BBC documentary* about the, for lack of better words, ZOMG TERRORISTS scare that takes it's sweet time to dissipate. Probably because there is too much money to be made. Such as selling this kind of junk.

* Available on Google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727

I know some editors class too many things that should be Idle as something else, but this seems to be the opposite; a legitimate article that is being filed as Idle. How exactly is this not considered news? It's a new application for existing chemicals that helps deal with terrorism without restricting rights, which is a hell of lot better than most of the anti-terrorism procedures we've been putting into place.

This isn't news. There was no journalism involved here. No reporter investigating the accuracy of the ad copy. And yes, it's an advert. It was written by the military, sent whole-cloth to the journal, which cut out the guts and published the fanfare.

This is propaganda.

That's why it's idle. Thank-goodness the editors aren't dweebs. They recognize that this kind of thing, while interesting, is also insultingly stupid.

"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"

Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.

Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. ..

Peroxide!

"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"

Ugh.

-FL

Whoa! Modded into troll dust, I see. How amusing that moderators get so upset over, well, things that are true.

Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in NJ includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, was troubled by a number of important questions about the anthrax attacks and the FBI's investigation of it that remain unanswered, and has called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)[81] Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.[82]

President Barack Obama, however, opposes such investigations and such legislation on the ground that they may "undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe and would probably veto a bill that contained an investigation provision.[83]

I thought plain vanilla bleach took care of all biological and most chemical agents just fine?
And as far as radioactive isotopes go, use whatever would remove the non-radioactive isotope of the element in question.

As I was told by an EPA inspector, once your Green/non-toxic/bio-degradable product comes in contact with the "toxic" contaminant, it TOO becomes a toxic contaminant and must be disposed of with the proper protocols. Even a neutralizing agent would need to be tested - what does the combination become - an inert mass or does it turn into some hybrid toxin we are currently unaware of - like the chocolate bar in the peanut butter....

A hydrogen peroxide-based decontaminant, Decon Green, is efficacious for the decontamination of chemical agents VX (S-2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl O-ethyl methylphosphonothioate), GD (Soman, pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate), and HD (mustard, bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide); the biological agent anthrax (Bacillus anthracis); and radiological isotopes 137Cs and 60Co; thus demonstrating the ability of this decontamination approach to ameliorate the aftermath of all three types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).... Decon Green is an EPA-registered sporicide.

Hydrogen peroxide is considered hazardous because of its highly reactive oxidation ability. It varies around the world a little, but generally in concentrations over 3% it should be accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet. In the presence of grease it can even become explosive.

To put its oxidation ability into context... Germany was using hydrogen pe